Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Education: Who needs it? Not Americans.

Posts

That's cool, just not how i've been brought up to see it I guess. In the UK we study Geography as one whole, with 2 main distinctions-Physical(Earth Sci stuff) and Human. There's almost no map study at all, ever, except for when we have to identify land forms from contours/pictures etc.

Yeah, that's not the American concept of geography at all. Ours is learning which country we're bombing that week, which is why it couples well with history.

Africa seems to have disappeared.

I remember seeing a similar map about 20 years ago, Japan was bigger, China was smaller and Middle East had "Oil here", while Europe was divided into UK "Tea Drinkers", France "Wine drinkers" and Germany "Beer drinkers"

Africa was a little black blob with the words: Black people should go here.

Everything I hear about education in the US is terrifying. Good motivation for me to get good marks at college and get a nice job so I can afford to send my (future?) kids to an good school.

It's more a crapshoot. If you live somewhere wealthy you're probably in good shape (or you're wealthy enough to send the childrens to private school.) There are REALLY good public schools (especially if it's a rich white suburb... like, um, mine) and REALLY bad public schools.

And assuming you can afford it/the kids are willing to take loans, the college system here is still the world's best by a pretty large margin.

I went to a fantastic high school in a only an upper middle class area (not that I was upper middle class, but I had an apartment close enough). I had cisco and all kinds of stuff more than 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, most Americans like and admire rich people, and a large number imagine, however irrationally, that they will get rich before they die. D::(

That's something I always admired about Americans.

That belief prevents Americans from favoring economic policies that actually benefit them. They keep thinking, "If I was rich I would not want the government to take my money." They ignore the fact that they will never get rich, no matter how hard they work.

Well yeah, obviously I'm referring to a stable government, not Turkmenistan or something.

I do think the U.S. government is better in those things then private enterprises though.

Like Cuba? It's been static for many decades now. It's almost as if nothing has really changed since 1959.

Americans ignore the fact that they can't exactly get rich if they support making the current rich people even more rich and priviledged.

If by this you mean taking our tax dollars and giving it to financial firms or via no bid contracts to corporations who lobby the hardest I agree with you, we are foolish to think that.

If by this you mean we shouldn't let businesses conduct business and actually build wealth so they can hire people or allow entrepreneurs to create services, products and jobs with as few hoops to jump through as possible then I don't.

Slightly late to the party here, but the Texas textbook changes are ridiculous. You have to have a pair of balls the size of Texas to suggest that Thomas Jefferson is NOT important to the chain of revolutions in the west. The man literally wrote the BOOK on staging a revolution from ones government. Or, at least, the white paper.

States other than Texas should band together and adopt rules for their textbooks that counter everything Texas does.

Balanced budget is fine if people would get over their fears of taxes that they'll never be in a high enough income bracket to worry about

Seriously are we going to have to slide into another great depression before people wake the fuck up and realize that our society cannot hold without raising taxes on the rich?

Unfortunately, most Americans like and admire rich people, and a large number imagine, however irrationally, that they will get rich before they die. D::(

"The American public see themselves not as a disenfranchised proletariat, but as temporarily displaced millionaires." - I forget who

Americans are delusional in this regard. The vast majority will never get rich no matter how hard they work.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

I'm not sure what your definition of "rich" is but accepting mediocrity is pretty fucking sad.

Either way I don't think anyone believes that "working hard" is how you get rich. Doing something that few people can do and that society deems valuable is what makes you rich. Working hard just separates you from the rest of the guys that can do that.

I'm not sure what your definition of "rich" is but accepting mediocrity is pretty fucking sad.

Either way I don't think anyone believes that "working hard" is how you get rich. Doing something that few people can do and that society deems valuable is what makes you rich. Working hard just separates you from the rest of the guys that can do that.

Americans are delusional in this regard. The vast majority will never get rich no matter how hard they work.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

I'm not sure what your definition of "rich" is but accepting mediocrity is pretty fucking sad.

Either way I don't think anyone believes that "working hard" is how you get rich. Doing something that few people can do and that society deems valuable is what makes you rich. Working hard just separates you from the rest of the guys that can do that.

Doesn't this exactly imply "the vast majority of people will never get rich no matter how hard they work"?

Americans are delusional in this regard. The vast majority will never get rich no matter how hard they work.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

I'm not sure what your definition of "rich" is but accepting mediocrity is pretty fucking sad.

Either way I don't think anyone believes that "working hard" is how you get rich. Doing something that few people can do and that society deems valuable is what makes you rich. Working hard just separates you from the rest of the guys that can do that.

Doesn't this exactly imply "the vast majority of people will never get rich no matter how hard they work"?

Not if you make the argument that there is the potential for everybody to be able to do something that few people can do if there are a few hundred million "things" that people can do.

Of course, that would mean that everybody would be equally valuable and nobody would be comparatively "rich". It's the rampant mediocrity that allows for exceptional people.

I suppose an important question is whether everybody could be "rich" if wealth was equally distributed.

Americans are delusional in this regard. The vast majority will never get rich no matter how hard they work.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

I'm not sure what your definition of "rich" is but accepting mediocrity is pretty fucking sad.

Either way I don't think anyone believes that "working hard" is how you get rich. Doing something that few people can do and that society deems valuable is what makes you rich. Working hard just separates you from the rest of the guys that can do that.

Doesn't this exactly imply "the vast majority of people will never get rich no matter how hard they work"?

Not if you make the argument that there is the potential for everybody to be able to do something that few people can do if there are a few hundred million "things" that people can do.

Of course, that would mean that everybody would be equally valuable and nobody would be comparatively "rich". It's the rampant mediocrity that allows for exceptional people.

I suppose an important question is whether everybody could be "rich" if wealth was equally distributed.

With the limited amount of wealth in the world, there's just no way for 6 billion people to all be rich. For one example, look at energy consumption. If everyone was using as much energy as the average person with an income of >$200,000, we couldn't possible produce enough energy for everyone to use. Even for asia and africa started using as much energy as the average American, would be impossible. For the forseeable future, there will only be a small amount of space at the top, and most people there are NOT the ones working the hardest or helping the most people.

Americans are delusional in this regard. The vast majority will never get rich no matter how hard they work.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

I'm not sure what your definition of "rich" is but accepting mediocrity is pretty fucking sad.

Either way I don't think anyone believes that "working hard" is how you get rich. Doing something that few people can do and that society deems valuable is what makes you rich. Working hard just separates you from the rest of the guys that can do that.

Doesn't this exactly imply "the vast majority of people will never get rich no matter how hard they work"?

Not if you make the argument that there is the potential for everybody to be able to do something that few people can do if there are a few hundred million "things" that people can do.

Of course, that would mean that everybody would be equally valuable and nobody would be comparatively "rich". It's the rampant mediocrity that allows for exceptional people.

I suppose an important question is whether everybody could be "rich" if wealth was equally distributed.

I don't think everyone being rich, wealthy, well off, or upper class is a laudible goal.

Lack of hunger, homelessness, healthcare, and some basic standard of living for all Americans are laudable goals.
It is deeply worrying, what happens if income disparity worsens - the breakdown of social order and evaporation of the middle class. You want to end America's welfare state you start by making the barrier to entry of the middle class an easy one to break though.

Edit: maybe I'm naive but it seems so easy to start at this, simply increasing federal student aid and putting our schools ahead of our military on our priority list as a start for a long term solution

Balanced budget is fine if people would get over their fears of taxes that they'll never be in a high enough income bracket to worry about

Seriously are we going to have to slide into another great depression before people wake the fuck up and realize that our society cannot hold without raising taxes on the rich?

Unfortunately, most Americans like and admire rich people, and a large number imagine, however irrationally, that they will get rich before they die. D::(

"The American public see themselves not as a disenfranchised proletariat, but as temporarily displaced millionaires." - I forget who

Americans are delusional in this regard. The vast majority will never get rich no matter how hard they work.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

I'm not sure what your definition of "rich" is but accepting mediocrity is pretty fucking sad.

Either way I don't think anyone believes that "working hard" is how you get rich. Doing something that few people can do and that society deems valuable is what makes you rich. Working hard just separates you from the rest of the guys that can do that.

Rich can loosely be defined here as, "rich enough to need to worry about getting taxed out the ass." Which I believe is the 250k and up area.

As to your second point, no. People really do think they are going to make it big if only they work harder (or buy more lottery tickets). That is the essence of the American dream, that anyone can come here with nothing and become rich as Hell. Of course, last I checked, we've fallen behind several European countries in upward mobility, which pretty much shits all over the concept, but you know, whatever.

While I don't take issue with the fact that $250K is indeed affluent I believe many people lack a real understanding of what wealth actually means in present day America. We have as of this year surpassed the Gilded Age in wealth inequality. The primary holders of wealth in America are not just the top 1%, but in fact the top .1%. This is literally a case of between 3 million, if your feeling generous, to several thousand people trying to subordinate 347 million for their own benefit. To get a good idea of the magnitude of the difference in existence between the wealthy and the middle class I suggest Richistan by Robert Frank.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

All the studies of Millennial's personal views I have read suggest that this is true. But the studies of their work habits suggest a very strong tendency towards advancement behavior. I worry that within the next decade when they grow up that they will suddenly start feeling the need to get theirs. Then again I'm a large picture pessimist.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

All the studies of Millennial's personal views I have read suggest that this is true. But the studies of their work habits suggest a very strong tendency towards advancement behavior. I worry that within the next decade when they grow up that they will suddenly start feeling the need to get theirs. Then again I'm a large picture pessimist.

What saddens me is a whole lot of intelligent, technical, and creative people who got their undergrad degree in things like physics, engineering, and pre-med just said "fuck it" to that career. They used their difficult majors to get into MBA programs and now work in finance for x2 or x3 the salary in their former profession.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

All the studies of Millennial's personal views I have read suggest that this is true. But the studies of their work habits suggest a very strong tendency towards advancement behavior. I worry that within the next decade when they grow up that they will suddenly start feeling the need to get theirs. Then again I'm a large picture pessimist.

What saddens me is a whole lot of intelligent, technical, and creative people who got their undergrad degree in things like physics, engineering, and pre-med just said "fuck it" to that career. They used their difficult majors to get into MBA programs and now work in finance for x2 or x3 the salary in their former profession.

Their technical skills go to waste for $$$.

It might be great for them (I guess), but it sucks for us.

physics and pre-med don't offer jack-shit in terms of career options, they're pretty much just preparing people for gradschool or med school. The chance to "only" do an extra 2 years of school and then get paid 3 times as much is pretty nice.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

All the studies of Millennial's personal views I have read suggest that this is true. But the studies of their work habits suggest a very strong tendency towards advancement behavior. I worry that within the next decade when they grow up that they will suddenly start feeling the need to get theirs. Then again I'm a large picture pessimist.

What saddens me is a whole lot of intelligent, technical, and creative people who got their undergrad degree in things like physics, engineering, and pre-med just said "fuck it" to that career. They used their difficult majors to get into MBA programs and now work in finance for x2 or x3 the salary in their former profession.

Their technical skills go to waste for $$$.

It might be great for them (I guess), but it sucks for us.

physics and pre-med don't offer jack-shit in terms of career options, they're pretty much just preparing people for gradschool or med school. The chance to "only" do an extra 2 years of school and then get paid 3 times as much is pretty nice.

I suppose. Anecdote aside, it was more the engineers (electrical, chemical) that I found doing this. Although it's most likely because they're smart enough to do anything successfully, they just naturally gravitated to the path of most reward.

Sucks because our society could benefit from their awesomeness doing real things in those fields. Like that EE from MIT that became the CEO of some big company after getting his MBA. Could have used his genius in the field and not screw us out of our money. It's going to suck if more people do that, like what Momento Mori said about the Millennial generation. I hope we can stay optimistic for longer though.

Americans are delusional in this regard. The vast majority will never get rich no matter how hard they work.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

I'm not sure what your definition of "rich" is but accepting mediocrity is pretty fucking sad.

Either way I don't think anyone believes that "working hard" is how you get rich. Doing something that few people can do and that society deems valuable is what makes you rich. Working hard just separates you from the rest of the guys that can do that.

Doesn't this exactly imply "the vast majority of people will never get rich no matter how hard they work"?

Not if you make the argument that there is the potential for everybody to be able to do something that few people can do if there are a few hundred million "things" that people can do.

Of course, that would mean that everybody would be equally valuable and nobody would be comparatively "rich". It's the rampant mediocrity that allows for exceptional people.

I suppose an important question is whether everybody could be "rich" if wealth was equally distributed.

I don't think everyone being rich, wealthy, well off, or upper class is a laudible goal.

Lack of hunger, homelessness, healthcare, and some basic standard of living for all Americans are laudable goals.
It is deeply worrying, what happens if income disparity worsens - the breakdown of social order and evaporation of the middle class. You want to end America's welfare state you start by making the barrier to entry of the middle class an easy one to break though.

Edit: maybe I'm naive but it seems so easy to start at this, simply increasing federal student aid and putting our schools ahead of our military on our priority list as a start for a long term solution

I think income disparity is less of an issue than overall wealth of the middle class and the poor. Our nation's wealth as a whole is far greater now than it has been in the past. In the depression the poor were starving. Now they are obese. In the 50's and 60's the middle class may have had houses and cars but they had little else. Access to education was worse, so was their health care, and they had almost no luxuries.

We continue to get wealthier as a society every decade. The stuff we take for granted today even among the poor was considered luxury 30 or 40 years ago.

Alternately, most of the math types I knew became actuaries instead of you know, mathematicians because that's where the big money is. It's depressing.

So they are getting paid well and there is still going to be market demand for mathematicians. So everybody gets employed and paid. What's the problem here?

Americans are delusional in this regard. The vast majority will never get rich no matter how hard they work.

The amount of Americans who are saying this, right here in this thread, makes me suspect that this cultural artifact may finally be dying out.

I'm not sure what your definition of "rich" is but accepting mediocrity is pretty fucking sad.

Either way I don't think anyone believes that "working hard" is how you get rich. Doing something that few people can do and that society deems valuable is what makes you rich. Working hard just separates you from the rest of the guys that can do that.

Doesn't this exactly imply "the vast majority of people will never get rich no matter how hard they work"?

Not if you make the argument that there is the potential for everybody to be able to do something that few people can do if there are a few hundred million "things" that people can do.

Of course, that would mean that everybody would be equally valuable and nobody would be comparatively "rich". It's the rampant mediocrity that allows for exceptional people.

I suppose an important question is whether everybody could be "rich" if wealth was equally distributed.

I don't think everyone being rich, wealthy, well off, or upper class is a laudible goal.

Lack of hunger, homelessness, healthcare, and some basic standard of living for all Americans are laudable goals.
It is deeply worrying, what happens if income disparity worsens - the breakdown of social order and evaporation of the middle class. You want to end America's welfare state you start by making the barrier to entry of the middle class an easy one to break though.

Edit: maybe I'm naive but it seems so easy to start at this, simply increasing federal student aid and putting our schools ahead of our military on our priority list as a start for a long term solution

I think income disparity is less of an issue than overall wealth of the middle class and the poor. Our nation's wealth as a whole is far greater now than it has been in the past. In the depression the poor were starving. Now they are obese. In the 50's and 60's the middle class may have had houses and cars but they had little else. Access to education was worse, so was their health care, and they had almost no luxuries.

We continue to get wealthier as a society every decade. The stuff we take for granted today even among the poor was considered luxury 30 or 40 years ago.

Alternately, most of the math types I knew became actuaries instead of you know, mathematicians because that's where the big money is. It's depressing.

So they are getting paid well and there is still going to be market demand for mathematicians. So everybody gets employed and paid. What's the problem here?

You're confusing malnutrition and undernutrition. Our poor are obese and starving. In addition, being "more wealthy as a society isn't very helpful when all those gains belong to ne guy with no hope of anyone else getting it.
In the past, the very richest of society couldn't afford today's cutting edge medicine. Today, only the rich can afford today's cutting edge medicine. Fantastic gain, right?

For some of the extra work, Gallo would pay $30 an hour from the federal grant. The teachers union pushed for more: $90 an hour.

Talks broke down. Gallo turned to the nuclear option.

This makes me want to cheer for her. $90 an hour? Seriously?

In any case the CNN article likely leaves details out. We'll see what happens.

e: before I get flamed for this - my views are, roughly, as follows: Unions do not generally ask for 'fair' wages, however defined; they push for more wages. This is more or less what they are supposed to do: continually push for the welfare of their members. Given significant public sector employment, it can be taken as given that if bargaining breaks down for whatever reason (in this case, the Obama school reform plan encouraging an either/or turnover/transformation choice, combined with recession budgetary recession pressure), it seems likely that some union somewhere will miscalculate and ask for something unreasonable, and then the local bureaucrat will opt to pull the plug instead. Union leaders and the employers they negotiate with are not omnirational; when the latter demands too much the former walks off the job. When the former demands too much the latter fires them, of course. What else are we supposed to expect? That superintendents everywhere give in whenever the local union tries to block reform?

Given that Obama has apparently supported the superintendent, I'm willing to doubt the union case here; given how the Dems depend on unions, it doesn't seem likely that this support was casually given.